Peroral endoscopic myotomy: is it better to perform it in naive patients or as second-line therapy? Results of an open-label-controlled study in 105 patients

Abstract

Abstract Background Whether Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) can be proposed as a second-line treatment in patients with achalasia remains to be confirmed in real-life series. Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy, feasibility and safety of POEM between treatment-naïve patients and patients who had prior endoscopic or surgical therapies for achalasia. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent a POEM procedure for achalasia in our centre from June 2015 to September 2018 were included in this retrospective study. They were classified into treatment-naïve patients (POEM1) and patients who had at least one previous endoscopic and/or surgical treatment for achalasia (POEM2). Results A total of 105 patients were included, 52 in the POEM1 group and 53 in the POEM2 group. Clinical success (defined as an Eckardt score ≤ 3) at 6 months was observed in 93% of POEM1 patients and 84% of POEM2 patients (p = 0.18). Technical success rate was not significantly different between the two groups (100% vs 96%, respectively; p = 0.50). No significant difference was noted in terms of adverse event rate (19% vs 19%, respectively; p = 1.00). Post-procedure pain occurred in 12% of treatment-naive and 9% of non-naïve patients (p = 0.76). The median length of hospital stay was 3 days in both groups (p = 0.17). Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux occurred in 25% of POEM1 patients and 16% of POEM2 patients (p = 0.24). Conclusion Efficacy, feasibility and safety of POEM are not different between treatment-naïve and non-naïve patients. POEM is a valuable second-line approach in patients with persistent symptoms of achalasia after surgical or endoscopic treatments.